According to a recent Pew poll , support for universal health care, provided and paid for by the federal government, is higher among American millennials than among older generations. Young Americans seem to believe that socialized medicine is a "cure-all" for health-care ills in the United States, as it ostensibly is elsewhere, such as Canada and Britain .
Unfortunately, there are facts that would appear to put this fantasy to rest by the facts -- for instance, the tragic and untimely death of a 20-year-old British woman in her dorm room last March. Victoria Hills, a first-year student, died of an ear infection, after "postpon[ing] visiting her campus general practitioner because her student loan had not come through and she couldn't afford the prescription."
There seems to be a myth that all medical care, procedures and drugs are free under a socialized system. Although Britons do have affordable access to primary-care doctors, and everyone in the UK is covered through high taxes, they are subjected to extensive waiting periods for specialists, surgeries and hospitalization. The fact is that in the West, as the ability of physicians to provide services becomes stretched, many patients die waiting for treatment .
In communist – and former communist -- countries, the situation is even worse, as the 2005 award-winning dark comedy, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu , tries to illustrate. The film portrays the medical tribulations of an elderly man in Romania, transported by ambulance from hospital to hospital for an entire night, while doctors at each location refuse to treat him and send him away. By the time he is finally admitted to a fourth hospital, he needs surgery to remove a blood clot from his brain. In a particularly poignant scene, one doctor comments: "They have saved him so he can die from an incurable liver neoplasm."
The sad reality about the field of medicine in a former communist country such as Romania is that old habits die hard. Having grown up in communist Romania, I remember, after feeling ill, being taken to the polyclinic, to a room full of other sick people, all entitled to "free" care. Some were there to receive permission slips to miss work due to their ailments. Others were there for injections. Still others were so ill that they could barely stand.
The system was "first come, first served." Everyone received a number and waited, as at a food counter, to see a medical professional. Sitting on the floor was forbidden; sometimes we would be forced to stand for an entire day – occasionally until nightfall – before being examined by an overworked doctor, who supplemented his "egalitarian" income with monetary or material bribes from patients seeking quicker access and better care. After performing a perfunctory examination, the doctor would give us a prescription and send us away. The trouble was that the pharmacy in the nearby shopping complex had as little stock on its shelves as every other store in the country. The pharmacist, who had no ingredients with which to prepare the antibiotic the doctor had prescribed, would simply shrug, and continue to earn his state income for doing nothing.
When my mother and I would return home empty-handed, my father would go out to find the medication on the black market, paying at least ten times the official price to obtain it. In spite of the harsh sentences presented to sellers and buyers on the black market, many were willing to take the risk -- and extremely grateful. It was the only way to fill the prescription, which was supposed to be free in the communist "paradise."
After the triumph of obtaining the antibiotic, one found oneself in possession of a mixed blessing. The cardboard capsules were the size of horse pills, so large that even adults had difficulty swallowing them; for children, it was nearly impossible. All attempts at getting down the huge pill without having bitter powder fill my mouth were unsuccessful.
Moving to the United States, where doctors were paid on the basis of merit and hard work, not according to a bogus ideological "equality" imposed by a central, omnipotent government and its bureaucrats, was a blessing. American millennials, a majority of whom seem to believe in ideological social experiments that may have failed broadly elsewhere, have no clue about the literal and figurative bitter pill that people living under socialist and communist regimes are forced to swallow -- not only where health care is concerned.
Rather than rejecting the basic free-market principles of the US economy -- as a 2016 Harvard University survey found that most do -- these young Americans would do well to ask themselves why it is that so many people from countries with socialized medicine flock to the United States for treatment.
Dr. Ileana Johnson is a Romanian-American writer, speaker, radio commentator and author of Echoes of Communism (Lessons from an American by Choice) .
I think it's a well-known fact on NT that I post many Gatestone Institute articles. I posted this one because when I read it, I considered it one of the most ludicrous articles I've seen on that site. The author has written an article here that is SO wrong, SO off the rails, that it seems to me like more of a parody, a fantasy, to the extent that I think it was published as an April Fool's joke. Realize, of course, that I spent the first 69 years of my life in Canada, and during that time made lots of use of its single-payer system. During those years I had occasion to undergo operations, requiring hospital stays in Toronto hospitals twice, and they didn't cost me one cent.
She speaks of "waiting periods" that are so long that the patients die before they get treated. In Canada any emergency situation goes to the front of the line and gets immediate attention. One of my operations was arthroscopic surgery on my knee due to torn cartilage, and yes, I had to wait a little while, but I could still walk and it didn't kill me, but I know that if I had had a heart attack or a burst appendix I would have been dealt with immediately. Only "vanity" operations, like a nose job or facelift are not covered, and rightly so (unless they are necessitated because of an accident that caused disfigurement). Even dental work required due to an accident is covered.
Another thing she said was that people FLOCK to the USA for medical care. It's true that some very impatient people want immediate attention to their complaints even if they are NOT serious or life-threatening, but the numbers who go south for treatment are grossly exaggerated. If a specialized treatment is not available in Canada, the patient is sent to the USA where it may be available, and ALL costs for it are paid by the Canadian health care system.
As for medications, I think most of you are aware that many Americans come to Canada to buy the medications, because in many cases the prices are MUCH lower. As well, when I turned 65, as a Senior Citizen, I was able to purchase all prescribed medications for only a minimal pharmaceutical dispensing fee, like five bucks, even if the medication would normally sell for hundreds of dollars.
So, when I read that article in Gatestone Institute, I literally burst out laughing.
I agree completely Buzz.
Yay, Buzz!
The real reality is that universal health care is possible in every developed country... except the US which is the wealthiest of all.
The inevitable conclusion is that the impossibility in America is purely political, and not at all technical or financial.
While living in France my girlfriend, a breast cancer survivor, went in for a mammogram. She was happy to find that it only cost her 20 euro. It would normally have been free but she is not a French citizen. Also, her blood pressure meds were only 5 euro there. The co-pay here is $20 so there you have it.
It would be political suicide for any politician who made a real effort to take away the health care systems of Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and all the Scandinavian countries. Every one of those countries have better health outcomes than the U.S. As someone who lived with the Canadian system for 4 years, I can back up Buzz's statement about why some Canadians come to the U.S. It has nothing to do with any lack of quality they have access to in Canada.
Actual statistics prove it.
Pinch me. Did Atheist and I actually agree on something?
It isn't the first time but maybe I didn't let on.
This person lived through some made up fantasy world. Whoever they were they were writing an essay in some kind fantasy against universal health care for the AMA in the States. I don't know any modern industrialized country that has universal health care where the service is like that. I have Canadian relatives (granted I am not in touch with them much) but they tell me that when they are sick they walk into the hospital and walk back out a few hours later with the meds they need and a treatment plan.
I truly hope that the ignorant assholes who are so profit driven that they don't give a fuck about the healthcare can be bypassed so we can Americans get a health plan like Canada or one of the Scandinavian countries. The problem is that I think that big Pharma and the major hospitals and the big doctors associations have too much of a death grip (and I do mean death grip) for us to change.
Life and death should not be a commodity traded on Wall Street. Why is it? Which legislators and presidents have worked to represent insurance companies and drug companies? Which legislators are working today to close or "privatize" the VA hospitals so our veterans' care must show a profit for the Wall Street crowd?
Universal health care is not in our future if Wal-Mart, Amazon and their ilk have anything to say about it.
Wal-Mart is supposedly considering buying Humana because Wal-Mart's growth and profits are stagnating. And maybe to be able to mine more personal information about its customers and potential customers.
Exactly! The healthcare, the life and death and sickness of a nation's citizens should NOT be on a for profit basis! It's the sign of an immoral society!
Oh....I don't like the sound of Cigna buying Express Scripts. That's the PBM that Tricare/Human uses and I get my chronic care meds from them.
I've NEVER had a problem with medical care in this country !
How much do you pay for it?
I can afford EVERYTHING I DECIDED I needed !
Thankfully my late husband had really good health insurance.
I can't even imagine what someone who does not have health insurance would go through battling pancreatic cancer.
My husband had Whipple surgery and a 12 day hospital stay, plus months of ongoing chemo, blood work, meds etc.
If we had to pay out of pocket for any of this it would have bankrupted us.
Copays were $5 to $25.00 depending and at the time since I did not take medical through my work I had a cafeteria plan (my work put money into this account the amount which equaled single coverage if I had elected to take medical through them) which I could submit all the copays and get reimbursed.
All said I paid out of my own pocket maybe $100 (I used up all my cafeteria plan money by the end of his life) out of upwards of $200,000 plus worth of medical bills.
The problem with government healthcare for all is that it runs contrary to the way this country has evolved. A successful insurance program can only work in a society where unhealthy, and even dangerous foods and environmental policies are shunned. This is America, and you can package up virtually anything that appeals to taste buds, put it in a plastic container made with chemicals that are banned in smarter countries, lie about the contents, and sell it to people under the guise of being healthy - because freedom! We are just as free to hurt consumers health as we are to not research what is actually harmful to eat. America has a symbiotic relationship between commerce and medicine, which results in a system of sickness management, not health care.
The last thing diabetes medication manufacturers want to do in this country is to cure diabetes.
The last thing the Susan B. Koman foundation wants is a cure for breast cancer, they want treatments and the relevancy of a foundation.
Agreeing with both of you. Vested interests rule.
Like many other issues this debate is the result of decades of brainwashing against individualism as obsolete and that we must all submit to the state in the name of the “collective good”
we now hear the clamoring demand that government has an “obligation” to meet demands (now labeled needs). Most of these have no problem with demanding Marxist “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” solutions
There is little to suggest that we can now fully reverse this national destruction. Too few have any sense of self accountability and personal responsibility when it’s easier to just demand someone else carry that responsibility for them
Do you live in a cave like a hermit, grow and raise your own food, make no contact with anyone, defend yourself from all forms of attack, individual and national, make absolutely no use of any public services? Then maybe I'll agree with you and take you seriously that in your case alone socialism is entirely unnecessary.
Ever read the John Grisham novel or watch the movie adapted from it called The Rainmaker?
Pretty much
Better move to the river side of the levee then dude.
Public services do not constitute socialism.
Really? You mean they're not paid for by the taxes YOU pay, or do you not pay any taxes, and I don't only mean income taxes - but taxes at every level of purchases you make.
Yes. Really.
So....by your definition.....any government expenditure would constitute "socialism".
That's not what socialism is, and never has been.
We'll summon our inner Inigo Montoya... "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."......
Let's consider an example. In Canada the single-payer health care system is paid for by taxes, and I am aware that the taxes I always paid, and even now deducted by the Canada Revenue Agency from my pension, have had part thereof directed to the payment for universal health care. Are you saying the universal health care is NOT socialism? Have you any idea how many members of NT have called that socialism? That is just ONE example.
Interestingly enough, single-payer health care was introduced to Canada by the CCF (soon to be named the New Democratic Party), Canada's socialist political party.
Are you really attempting to equate "not growing your own food" with single payer health insurance?
"Socialism" is when government owns the means of production. A "socialized" or "nationalized" industry is one where government has taken it over.
Canada has socialized health insurance. The government owns the "means of production" in that particular industry, therefore it meets the broad definition of "socialist".
That does not mean that ALL public services constitute socialism. That's ridiculous. Even in Canada.
When the US govt decides to build a new federal highway, it hires private contractors, engineers and architects. They buy materials from other private industries. The means of production is all privately owned, and therefore cannot be socialist.
The leftists would have us all follow the ridiculous line of thinking that starts with "the government builds roads, and therefore that's socialist" which meanders into "socialism is A-OK" and ends up with "we should socialize health insurance so I can get somebody else to pay for mine." They throw in generous helpings of erroneous declarations like "healthcare is a right"...hoping that everyone will forget that "rights" do not include things you have to force somebody else to do or pay for.
Well...roads are not socialist. Schools are not socialist. City Hall is not a monument to socialism. And one person does not have a "right" to another's labor or the fruits thereof.
So that makes all Canadian doctors, medical staff, hospital staff, etc Socialists? Or are you saying, as you do for road building, that all who contribute to its completion are NOT Socialists, so neither are doctors - it is the system, not the individuals that/who are Socialist. I think I understand what you're saying, so Canada can be a Socialized country made up of individual capitalists. In that regard, China is on its way to that as well.
No. They own the means of production. If they were all govt employees, that would be socialized healthcare.
No. I'm saying it's possible for a capitalist country to socialize a specific industry. In Canada it's health insurance. In England it's health care itself. In some countries it's oil production.
But it's inaccurate to call things like infrastructure spending or housing vouchers or defense spending "socialist".
You nailed it and I try to live by John Galt's famous quote.
But you don't, do you. If you opened up your life to us it wouldn't take long to find the many ways you depend on someone else for something.
Yes I believe in free trade of goods and services not socialism where the government steals from one and gives to another.
So you do not carry gubmint mandated auto insurance, or did you just stop driving?
Believe whatever myth you want. My comment still stands and you haven't even tried to object to it which speaks to some level of honesty on your part.
LOL. Thank you Ayn Rand.
In what universe does a government requirement for you to buy a product from a private entity constitute "socialism"?
So, you don't drive on the roads we all pay for.. if you get injured, and you have nothing to trade that the one person who can fix you up wants .. you're willing to die happily.
Benny Hill. Cut out the middleman.
Got it. Darwin Awards.
1. There is no Federal requirement to buy auto insurance
2. The only stated mandated auto insurance is liability which provides no personal benefit. It is to make whole others whom you damage
If it was not required by the states you know the federal government would require it
Let's put it this way, NONE of the primary proposals regarding healthcare, particularly the PPACA aka Obamacare do nothing to make it affordable. Obamacare was a health insurance bailout, plain and simple. If you want affordable healthcare, what needs to be done is to standardize charging practices across the board. Right now, each hospital and doctor sets up their own charging for the supplies and medicines that they supply. Let's say, you go to the emergency room: at one hospital, it may cost you $20.00 for a bandage, while at another hospital, it may cost you $5.00 for the same bandage. What I propose is that we set the markup on actual cost for the hospital and doctor for their medical supplies to be a set percentage. That is they can mark it up, but not to the exorbitant amount they are now. What these hospitals and doctors do, currently, is go to the insurance companies and offer them a discount on the current mark-up so while someone without insurance may come in and be charged 10000% for a bandage, the insurance company may get charged 150% or less for the cost to the hospital or doctor. That is where we need to focus our efforts on. Not the way insurance is supported or handled, but on the actual costs of healthcare.
Remember, those of us critical of the PPACA kept warning you what was in the bill and we were ALWAYS correct about it and kept being proven correct even after it was made into law. Too bad the Republicans have shown themselves to only want to campaign on repealing the PPACA instead of actually repealing it, otherwise we might get something accomplished outside of tax cuts. No insurance plan should cost you hundreds of dollars for premiums, while giving you a deductible of $1500 and an OOP of $2500 and be considered affordable, as for any insurance plan, you want a low premium, low deductible, and low OOP for affordability. I know, I used to have one when I still worked at my family's farm in PA. Then, the PPACA, after I had left, forced it to get a new plan that no longer had the $0 deductible and go to the $1500 deductible...
The most disappointing thing about the ACA was that it didn't include the promised "robust public option".
No. It wasn't.
Correct. But you're going to have to pay US physicians a lot less.
Actually, it was if you look at how it was designed. The minimum plan on the exchanges and even for businesses was a $1500 deductible, which means each family had to pay $1500 in prescriptions, doctors visits, etc. before the plan would actually kick in and cover anyone. That means for most people, they would be paying their premium and the "negotiated" price on their medicines and everything else for several months before the plan kicked in and actually paid anything. So, that means, the patients at best paid the basic discounted price for their care that their insurance company negotiated, which usually was discounted from an artificially inflated price to begin with.
They didn't need a bailout. They were profitable.
Plan designs varied from state to state. Many plans had first dollar benefits like physician or prescription co-pays.
However in every state, insurers were prohibited from assessing risk. That's why almost none of them participate in the exchanges anymore.
So very true. Regardless of what any of us feel about the individual mandate, it did nothing to make health care more affordable. It made health insurance more affordable for many, but that isn't the key issue here. Health care was not made more affordable.